Posts by Titus

Yes, the bust of Epicurus looks very good. I have never seen a better copy in quality.

This is my personal copy that usually looks down a shelf in my kitchen. The quality is good (but not as good as the copy of Epicurus). The head also looks 'down to the ground' , there is a light incline. This is my reason of positioning the bust at an higher ground.

Ordering was easy and fast with excellent packaging.

Quote from JJElbert

He didn't engineer a utopia; he plotted the course of a happy life. If he has an heir among political theorists, we should look not to Marx, but to Thomas Jefferson.

For sure, this is the central criticism of Marx(ism) and also of a lot of other authors on Epicurus: The garden philosopher didn't construct an utopia that tries to change the world politically. But it doesn't mean that Marx wasn't inspired by his intensive reading of writings of Epicurean descent. The only question is to what degree Marx got influenced by Epicurus. But this question is very hard to answer. I would never believe Marx to be an Epicurean, but I believe in the flow of philosophical information. Epicureanism is like the Museo del Prado in Madrid and Marx got inspired by visiting the paintings of the old masters to draw his own picture.

Marxists present(ed) Epicurean philosophy as an incomplete building, but often as a fine one. I had a look on a old book about the central teachings of Marxism-Leninism. Before the author started his critique he only had the honest words on Epicurus.

https://antik.gko.uni-leipzig.de/index.php?id=36

I visited this place five years ago. It's a small but fine museum. You can buy copies of busts of Epicurus and Hermarchus online or at the museum's shop. They are cheap and of a good quality. Ironically, these busts itself are not shown in the museum (but are made from casts of the originals they have in their depot). But they show a original Roman statue, itself a Roman reproduction of a Greek bust of Metrodorus. It was amazing to have a look on a statue, Roman Epicureans had a look on!

These are some notices about my personal research on the connection between Epicurean philosophy and its reception by Marx. Don't take them too seriously.

Some years ago I discovered an interesting connection between Marx and Epicurus. I had read the verses of Lucretius on cultural evolution and suddenly I reminded what is so called "historical materialism". I had to laugh out loud because I thought perhaps Communism might evolve only some steps further. I did so, because I reminded that Marx completed his Dissertation in March 1841 about "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature". It's quite interesting because De Rerum Natura is perhaps the only book from classical antiquity, trying to compare some elements of Democritean and Epicurean philosophy. For sure, Lucretius had to be one of Marx's most important resources.

This was just the start of my reserach about the connection between Marx and Epicurean philosophy. Just a funny fact and it seemed to be just a remindable similarity.

I wasn't able to forget about the topic, so I checked some years later Marx's dissertation. And I really wondered about, because Marx's refers in his dissertations introduction to the letter to Menoikeus:

"Philosophy, as long as a drop of blood shall pulse in its world-subduing and absolutely free heart, will never grow tired of answering its adversaries with the cry of Epicurus:

Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them, is truly impious."

(https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/w…es/foreword.htm)

This passage gives several information: First: Marx knowed the letter to Menoikeus. Second: He also refers to in matter of critique of religion. Third: We should not underestimate the influence of Epicurus on Marx (especially, because Marx also did reserach on hellenistic philosophy in his youth).

The whole topic is so interesting to me, because the philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach is always said to have had influenced Marx heavenly. Heavenly in kind of critique of religion and heavenly in kind of materialism. Ironically, his basic work "The Essence of Christianity" was published also in 1841, perhaps some months later than Marx' dissertation. My conclusion is, perhaps, just perhaps, you could forget about Feuerbach. Marx didn't need Feuerbach.

I know little about Marx and I know little about Feuerbach. I know nothing about their personal connection. These are the points I have to evolve my knowledge. Unfortunately, there is rare primary literature on the topic. Just cultural scientists and marxists copying from each other.

At the moment, my hypothesis is the following: Marx was heavenly influenced (from several sources and) by Epicurus, from which he borrowed some key ideas. Later, writers like Feuerbach also did influence Marx, but perhaps they rather served as a mirror to Marx. Feuerbach was a compagnon in the same era. Feuerbach was a person to refer to and to talk with. Who would refer to Epicurus, this old philosopher? We also have to remind that in the 19th century Epicurus was just available to an elite who was able to handle classic Latin and Greek.

If there might have been a great influence of Epicurean philosophy on Marx, this influence logically might been overwritten by the living philosophers of that era.

Finally, I would like to share a sweet piece of chocolate with you. Erich Fromm mentions the mentioned quote by Epicurus in his book "Marx's Concept of Man" but without mentioning Epicurus. He handles this quote just global, as a sign of Marx's refering to classical antiquity philosophers. He lists every other philosopher... but not the one.